See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Physics laws flawed (Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years, uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of physics may have been changing through cosmic time. )
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20071012-16699-2.html
Published: Dec 13, 2007
Author: n
Post Date: 2007-12-13 11:26:08 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 1524
Comments: 89
Physics laws flawed E-mail to a Friend Monday, 10 December 2007 Swinburne University A Swinburne astrophysicist has leapt another hurdle in the path to proving that our fundamental theories of physics are not what they seem. Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years, uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of physics may have been changing through cosmic time. In this latest move, Murphy has debunked a study which claimed to disprove his findings. Murphy’s research into the laws of Nature goes back eight years, and concerns our understanding of electromagnetism, the force of nature that determines the sounds we hear, the light we see, and how atoms are held together to form solids. Through the study of electromagnetism in galaxies ten billion light years away, he has challenged the fundamental assumption that the strength of electromagnetism has been constant through time. “Back in 2001 we published evidence showing a small change in the fine structure constant, the number that physicists use to characterise the strength of electromagnetism,” Murphy said. “Even though the change that we think we see in the data is quite small, about five parts in a million, it would be enough to demonstrate that our current understanding must in fact be wrong. It’s an important discovery if correct. It suggests to physicists that there’s an underlying set of theories we’re yet to broach and understand.” Physicists have been chasing results like these for a number of years, but since 1999, Murphy and his co-researchers have been ahead of the pack. They’ve published a series of observations from the Keck Telescope in Hawaii as further evidence of a varying fine structure constant. But, a few years ago, another research team claimed that data from a different telescope contradicted Murphy’s observations. However, he’s been able to prove that the contradictory work itself was flawed. “We’ve shown that the way the data was analysed was faulty,” he said. “Their procedures were faulty so the numbers that came out are meaningless. Our paper points this out. When you replicate their analysis and fix their problems, you get a very very different answer indeed.” Murphy has a ‘comment’ about this latest work in this week's issue of the journal Physical Review Letters. It’s the most difficult journal for physicists to get published in, and is the one they turn to for important results in their field. This latest step is not the end of the road though in convincing scientists across the world that they need to rethink their ideas about electromagnetism. Even though this study also produced results that agree with his initial Keck findings, Murphy said there’s still work to be done. “There are some problems that need addressing,” he said. “It’s quite a surprising result and one that probably many people need a lot more convincing on. It will take some time, but we’re doing that job.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 67.
#4. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
Either electromagnetism is stronger in the past (and farther away) or the recession-dominated red-shift assumption is wrong, if I understand this correctly. So, it's a pretty dull dilemma to me.
If you use nonlinear gravity, such as the inverse-square law multiplied by a sinusoidal factor, or some such thing, I suppose the spatial energy distribution of the universe can evolve into increased complexity or, preferably, cycle within a similar periodically self-organizing path. A crudely similar process can be produced with cellular automata rules. I guess the spatial sinusoidal frequency or frequencies of quantum gravity would be most simply governed by a light-like gravity quanta mode of infinitesimal mass, and thus ultra-long wavelength, combined directly with the inverse-square rule, which of course naturally arises from the space-filling fall-off of quanta flux density with distance from the source.
Here's Hoag's galaxy:
beautiful
I've decided it's impossible to add anything more to that post, as the site- server software is apparently automatically multiplying all the paragraph breaks with each edit. Anyway, I might be the first nobody to come up with this oddball quantum gravity interpretation of the galaxy shapes seen here. I am going to name the zero-crossover region "the nobody zone." Can't wait for those internet nobody residuals to start pouring in.
Thank you for posting those. I don't see how anyone could believe it's all just from chaos.
The quantum gravity phases of Hoag's ring apparently reinforce those of Hoag's center by the distance between the two, seems to me. I can imagine glusters and intercluster space evolving to be filled with similar ripples despite no mass around to experience them. Yet if it's possible to build a Cherenkov microwave amplifier, then it seems it's possible to oscillate light using gravity, splitting it up into microwaves and thus reddening the light in the process.
I wish I understood that ;)
I don't think he expects anyone here to understand it. If you throw in enough scientific mumbo-jumbo into each sentence one has to conclude that one is either far above everyone else in intellect and knowledge, or else is a very adept bs artist (much like the typical politician that answers questions with a series of half-sentences and non-sequitors, so as to make the mind glaze over in a stupor, having forgotten the original question). Guess which of the two possibilities here I'm concluding is most likely?
Just curious, you see any of that in what I've written? Which sentence is the worst?
this is in reply to post#59 I did not have a chance to read the posts below that Half-sentences and non-sequitors are the perview of politicians. I apologize for implying that that is your writing style. But I do have a problem with excessive terminology being used in vertually every sentence, the net effect is the same. I get a headache trying to make sense of it as I read it. And some of it DOES make sense, but it becomes too laborious to read. Here are some examples where you lose me. The middle portion of post #8, pretty much the entirety of post #20. This sentence from post #33 probably gets my vote for most brain-glazing: Now, I've been interested in science for a long time, so I'm really quite familiar with most of these terms when presented clearly. I've heard of string theory and membrane theory. But some terms like "Spin-1" and "Spin-2" (or "zero-crossing zones") are unfamiliar to me, and likely to anyone else here. So we have to take your word for it that you're talking about something real. In all fairness, I've seen real bs-ing in science forums where the so-called theoretician was throwing terms right out of science-fiction movies. And what you posted is not like that. But my initial impression was that your mo was similar -- "baffle them with (at least some) bull if you can't dazzle them with brilliance". So, if you are a real student of physics (and having to re-read at least some of your posts at least makes me willing to give you more benefit of the doubt), then I implore upon you to work on communicating your ideas more clearly, using scientific terminology in moderation. I'm just an amateur, and I imagine most of the folks here are too -- though my specialty is astronomy.
Do you think it's a red Einstein ring on that smaller object inside Hoag's ring? In that ring I see at least three brightness maxima, two in a pair near the bottom of the ring and one faint one near the top. There's even a fourth spot right between the pair. Almost like an oval red target pattern is phase- interfering with the straight lines in a red peace sign. Classic Einstein ring pattern, like a bent cross or the corners of a tetrahedron, but very red and very wide from the supposed lensing object at its center, it looks red-shifted and/or magnified, to me, maybe flattened or rotated a bit too. It's fuzzy, I know. I'm thinking of all sorts of paintings I could make based on multiplying this idea. The symbolism is fantastic. Practically can't believe the PTB haven't known about it for a while.
#68. To: nobody (#67)
I couldn't say. It looks like it could also be another ring galaxy like Hoag's. Galactic densities (and the chances of a head-on collision between galaxies) would be much higher at the greater distances, so it wouldn't be an impossible coincidence. A detailed set of spectrograms of the galaxy in question might resolve the question. If I understand correctly, if this is just a ring galaxy, the core and the ring should have similar redshifts. If it is an Einstein ring, I would guess that the core and ring would have very different redshifts, since they were coming from different sources. Or so that would be my understanding. Maybe you could request time on the Hubble to do spectrums of the galaxy and the ring.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: nobody (#4)
#20. To: ghostdogtxn (#6)
(Edited)
#24. To: nobody (#20)
#27. To: ghostdogtxn (#24)
#28. To: nobody (#27)
#32. To: robin (#28)
(Edited)
#36. To: nobody (#32)
#55. To: robin (#36)
#56. To: nobody (#55)
#57. To: robin (#56)
(Edited)
#59. To: PnbC (#57)
a series of half-sentences and non-sequitors
#65. To: nobody, robin (#59)
(Edited)
ust curious, you see any of that in what I've written? Which sentence is the worst?
I suppose galactic-intergalactic distributions have significantly evolved toward maximizing intergalactic quantum gravity zero-crossing zones, giving a red- shifting graviton-coupled quantum ripple to much of intergalactic space.
#67. To: PnbC (#65)
(Edited)
my specialty is astronomy
Replies to Comment # 67.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 67.